UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman MICHAEL D. WENCE

United States Air Force

ACM S32162

04 September 2014

Sentence adjudged 5 June 2013 by SPCM convened at Joint Base Andrews

Naval Air Facility Washington, Maryland. Military Judge: Michael A. 

Lewis (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 21 days, and 

reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Isaac C. Kennen and 

Captain Lauren A. Shure.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel C. Taylor 

Smith and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED, SARAGOSA, and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant pled guilty before a military judge sitting as a special court-martial 

to one specification of wrongful possession of heroin, in violation of Article 112a, 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 912a. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 

21 days, and reduction to E-1. The convening authority approved the sentence as 

adjudged. On appeal, the appellant asserts his sentence is inappropriately severe. We 

disagree and affirm.
2 ACM S32162

Baltimore police officers arrested the appellant and a companion in a high crime 

area known for its drug activity. They made the arrest after observing the appellant hand 

his companion some money. The companion left the car and returned minutes later with 

what appeared to be capsules. The police found drugs on the appellant’s companion and 

also found four capsules, which the appellant admitted contained heroin, in the center 

compartment of the car. At trial, the appellant contended that he did not intend to 

purchase heroin that night, but rather, expected his companion to get him prescription 

painkillers—for which he did not have a prescription—because Air Force doctors had 

recently taken him off painkillers and he was experiencing withdrawal symptoms. 

According to the appellant, it was not until his companion returned to the car with the 

capsules that the appellant learned it was heroine. Regardless, it is clear that the 

appellant set out to purchase a controlled substance he was not legally authorized to 

possess and that the appellant possessed the substance after he learned that it was heroine.

This Court has the authority to review sentences pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. § 866(c), and to reduce or modify sentences we find inappropriately severe. 

We review sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382, 

383–384 (C.A.A.F. 2005). Generally, we make this determination in light of the 

character of the offender and the nature and seriousness of his offense. 

United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982). Our duty to assess the 

appropriateness of a sentence is “highly discretionary” but does not authorize us to 

engage in an exercise of clemency. United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286, 287 

(C.A.A.F. 1999); United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395–96 (C.M.A. 1988).

The appellant suggests that his sentence is inappropriately severe because his 

offense was only for the possession of heroin, rather than use of the drug. After review 

of the entire record of trial in this case, we cannot say that the adjudged sentence is 

inappropriately severe. The appellant sought out a method to obtain illegal drugs of some 

sort via the Internet, solicited a civilian for assistance, drove 20 miles from his residence 

to make the drug transaction, was caught on a video surveillance system used by the 

civilian police department, and found with heroin in his possession. After carefully 

examining the submissions of counsel and taking into account all of the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the appellant’s crimes, we do not find the appellant’s sentence 

inappropriately severe. See Snelling, 14 M.J. at 268.

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) 

and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 
3 ACM S32162

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court